Subject:
|
Re: Just Teasing, I Have No Intention of Debating Any of This...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 24 Mar 2003 13:36:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
890 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> > Do you suppose we ride the only white horse?
>
> Is it out of the question that maybe we do?
Yes. I can't think of a plausible reason to think that we are more concerned
with doing good than _everyone_ else. I think that all people are motivated by
their own interests which means that any country or society will have "good"
and "bad" people.
> To RM and the Left, it is a categorical "yes". It is assumed that
> of course Bush is up to something-- *all* politicians are . Why
> is that necessarily so?
Past performance?
> My theory is that the Left hate the fact that Bush won,
I think that you don't mean me when you say "the left," but I don't hate the
Bush won...I hate how he won. There are too many contingencies and
coincidences leading to his victory in Florida for a rational person to think
that he won it honorably. That is just an implausible assertion. If it came
down to being that close after recounts and the Supreme Court (stacked by daddy
or not) decided the situation we might just figure that's how it works out and
we'll try again in four years. But the misappropriation of voting rights as
a result of collusion between Texas and Florida is too much. I hate the fact
that the election was rigged. That's what they do in places like Chile and
Cuba and we have reduced our great nation by fixing the election.
I know that you'll wave your hands in dismissal of all this, as if pretending
it didn't happen will make it so, but I'm not going to forget about it.
> that Bush is a Christian,
Ummm...most Democrats are Christian too. I'm afraid I don't follow this one.
I mean, _I_ happen to consider being a Christian an intellectual fault, but
most of the "lefties" don't. There is a large subsection of the American
communitarian movement that specifically base their communitarian beliefs on
their the teachings of Jesus Christ. Richard, here in this forum, has
repeatedly pointed to references that suggest Jesus advocated a pretty strong
socialist stance: Jesus was a lefty.
> and that they see American values are swinging to the right.
I admit that this bothers me, but since I stradle the left and the right more
extremely than most people who are one only one side, I can enjoy the ground
gained either way.
> The Left is all for tolerance as long as you
> tolerate what *they* tolerate-- anything else is met with the kind of vile
> intolerance I see for the *person* of George Bush.
I agree. Liberal Americans are no more likely than Conservative Americans to
be open minded about reinterpreting the world. Both groups believe that the
world is a certain way and that's all there is to it.
> > Wait a second there. Undisputed? You're just asserting that. What if I
> > dispute it? Or did you mean undisputed by the people who agree with you?
>
> No please, dispute it if you wish. When or where has appeasing
> terrorists ever worked out?
What do you mean by "appeasing" and "worked?" We sort of appeased (well,
supported) the Nicaraguan Contra terrorist group. We appease the Israeli
terrorist government (though I know you don't accept that to be reality). We
have harbored Cuban expatriot terrorists while they harried Cuban national
interests. We directly exerted terrorist force on the people of Indochina.
The numerous attrocities used by the USA to move the natives of our land out of
the way certainly include terrorism. I'm not sure which of these you might
think have "worked out."
> > It
> > is really quite clear to me (though this is certainly disputed) that the
> > Palestinians are resorting to small scale terrorist aggression because it is
> > the only tactic that they have available.
>
> What about peace!!!??? They have *never* tried that, because there are
> extremist groups among Palestinians for which peace with Israel is not an
> option-- only the destruction of the State of Israel.
What is the early history of Israel like? My impression of Palestinian claims
is that they will be much happier if Israel would assert sovreignty over the
land assigned to them by UN mandate and start treating Palestinian Israelis as
equals. Do we have reason (other than the Macho Flash of these groups) to
believe that nothing less than the dissolution of the state of Israel would
satisfy and significant number of them? I have specifically hearn mainstream
Arab politicians claim that that isn't so.
> > And anyway, what do you figure they would do if we made
> > our donations to them contingent on pursuing the peace process?
>
> To possibly use nukes as a last resort to defend themselves? *That* wouldn't
> be good...
So we're paying extortian?
> Look, the scary part is that he sympathizes with people who are willing to go
> to extremes to reach their goals. Wounding America wounds Israel, so why
> wouldn't he assist terrorists?
So if we made our relationship with Israel such that harming them did not harm
us, we would be safe from him? Surely that would be cheaper than doing a war.
> Depends what you mean by "us". The obliteration of Washington D.C. and all of
> our leaders would instantly create 50 "countries" of some sort.
I'm not convinced that:
a) this would really happen
b) if it did happen it would last longer than a day or two
c) this would be a bad thing
> > Sure! Of course their objections are commercial in nature. But
> > given that this is so tranparent, why is it so opaque that we
> > might be acting on the same basis?
>
> We could be, but why is our moral motivation rejected out of hand?
Past performance? Why do we liberate this particular group of oppressed
people? Why don't we liberate Cuba? Why do we maintain trade with China? Why
didn't we commit to the defense and liberation of Somalia? Why didn't we stop
the Rwandan genocide? Why didn't we bootstrap the newly free ex-Soviet states
into a healthy democratic consumerism?
> > And if these oil and infrastructure companies -- the ones that all _happen_ • to
> > get the contracts, are the ones that the Bushes and Cheneys _happen_ to be
> > heavily invested in...that still won't be evidence of shady dealing, or will
> > it?
>
> Not necessarily.
So you pretty much believe that Bush is a good guy and it would take astounding
counter-examples to shake your confidence. If his cronies get rich because of
this war, I'm willing to ascribe that to greedy misappropriation.
> Ahh, I think you have reached the *real* issue. I do believe Bush is a • sincere
> and honest man. I believe his intentions *are* pure. Now, is that because I
> am a partisan?
How do you feel about President Carter?
> Has Bush given any indication that he is not to be trusted?
Aside from continually shifting the reasons that we're doing this war? And
never presenting any reasonable evidence that we're in danger? And probably
having inappropriate relations with Enron? And making sure the law of texas
applies differently to his daughters than to other teenagers? And being a
cokehead and a drunk? I guess not.
> What do people say about the man who actually know him, who knew him *before*
> he became president?
That he's not a mean drunk...anymore.
> What is his character as the man he is today? Is it so
> incontheivable that a president might actually respect his position of power
> and wield it as honestly as he is able?
It's not impossible. But I'm not seeing a strong case for it.
> Further, could all of the hatred and contempt for Bush be mere partisanship?
Not all of it. My contempt for him has nothing to do with Partisanship.
Neither does my contempt for Gore. Was all the hatred of Clinton mere
partisanship?
> Seriously, could an "idiot" or a "moron" *really*
> be able to ascend to the most powerful position the world has ever known?
Yeah.
> I believe it's religious intolerance and political bigotry,
> plain and simple.
Wow. I sure don't see it. Certainly there's lots of partisanship involved,
but it's not a blame-all.
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
164 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
